How many good photos are taken everyday now with everyone being a photographer of selfies and documentaries, not much chance of standing out anymore or making a living unless you are a photographer of weddings and divorces. Most artists create a few good works and the rest of their works are recipe based on previous successes for putting food on the table.
What's annoying about watching videos like this--where curators and academics gush on about the genius of the moment--is you know they would've chafed at the very same individuals and their work(s) had they encountered them as unknowns. True story. . . . .
BOBMAN1980 So true. But to be fair, it's normal for critics to have to catch up to the artist. Rarely do they ever encounter an actual visionary who is ahead of his time, most of the time they presume it's just bad art. Criticism could be just like art itself. There are a lot of good artists but few truly exceptional ones. There are also a lot of good critics, but few can see beyond what others do.
I have a bunch of pics on Flickr, add more everyday. I wonder after I am long gone if someone will discover my dormant account and will read into my ordinary pics some deep meaning of what I was trying to convey when all I was doing was snapping photos.
Eggleston was great no doubt. Love his work But that film stocks and the time/place he shot did him huge favors. You just can't reproduce what he did in today's times.
It’s a myth he only takes one shoot of every image, there is proof that this isn’t true. For example the airplane window photo with the glass, there are multiple negatives of that scene and you can see he was trying different approaches to that picture. Artists love to make myths about themselves. He also shot more color negative film than slides.
I truly hate it when people ask me that, because it wasn't the camera that got up at 6am to walk the streets of a city. It tells me that people don't understand photography at all, and think that a new camera will fix their problems. Every modern camera is capable of superb images. The question you should be asking is, "What alarm clock did you use?". because getting out of bed to take photos is more important than the camera under your bed.
I love Eggleston's America.
To me his work lives on the edges of everyday snapshot world and genius. One minute I may say what?, the other wow (on the same image)!
Looking at his photos must give some older people a nostalgic feeling. For a seemingly idyllic time/place.
A genius, master of composition and color. Many Instagram wrapped imitators try to be him, but they all fail.
How many good photos are taken everyday now with everyone being a photographer of selfies and documentaries, not much chance of standing out anymore or making a living unless you are a photographer of weddings and divorces. Most artists create a few good works and the rest of their works are recipe based on previous successes for putting food on the table.
Fabulous photos, what a wonderful exhibit!
What's annoying about watching videos like this--where curators and academics gush on about the genius of the moment--is you know they would've chafed at the very same individuals and their work(s) had they encountered them as unknowns.
True story. . . . .
BOBMAN1980 So true.
But to be fair, it's normal for critics to have to catch up to the artist. Rarely do they ever encounter an actual visionary who is ahead of his time, most of the time they presume it's just bad art.
Criticism could be just like art itself. There are a lot of good artists but few truly exceptional ones. There are also a lot of good critics, but few can see beyond what others do.
Of course, because the very same photographer usually produce tons of non-extraordinary images too.
I have a bunch of pics on Flickr, add more everyday. I wonder after I am long gone if someone will discover my dormant account and will read into my ordinary pics some deep meaning of what I was trying to convey when all I was doing was snapping photos.
In the art world, they are often referred to as the Gatekeepers...keeping out the riff-raff, at least until they are discovered, then they gush..
Excellent!
proves that you don't need to print HUGE to have your work hanging in a museum.
All of Edward Weston’s prints are contacts 8x10
Cant believe I missed this...
How the heck did the guys back in the day shoot 64 iso film indoors?
flashed
Eggleston was great no doubt. Love his work
But that film stocks and the time/place he shot did him huge favors.
You just can't reproduce what he did in today's times.
I didn't know people were still doing dye transfers.
i wanted to see more!
How do you achieve the colors of Eggleston? The only slide film available for this is Ektachrome
Ektar 100 is pretty close. Eggleston used color negative such as kodacolor
eggleston handles a different form of aesthetics..
.....but where is the photoshopping......no photoshop???......he had to...what....get his exposures just right?...so...uh...
It’s a myth he only takes one shoot of every image, there is proof that this isn’t true. For example the airplane window photo with the glass, there are multiple negatives of that scene and you can see he was trying different approaches to that picture.
Artists love to make myths about themselves.
He also shot more color negative film than slides.
what kind of a camera did he use?
He has a HUGE collection of rangefinder cameras (mostly Leicas).
I truly hate it when people ask me that, because it wasn't the camera that got up at 6am to walk the streets of a city.
It tells me that people don't understand photography at all, and think that a new camera will fix their problems.
Every modern camera is capable of superb images.
The question you should be asking is, "What alarm clock did you use?". because getting out of bed to take photos is more important than the camera under your bed.